公告_资讯专区_美联货运险 Freight insurance professional platform, the preferred MYONLINE! Dedicated, professional, freight insurance!

Announcement Position:Home Page > News&Events > Announcement

The main manifestation of the legal risk of the delivery list

It is often heard that many suppliers do not sign a written contract when they buy and sell with some customers. They usually deliver the goods on a phone or fax.

Therefore, the evidence provided by the supplier (the delivery person) is only the delivery bill when the customer refuses to pay the payment and is not allowed to bring a lawsuit.

What are its legal risks?

Usually, there are defects in the delivery list, which leads to the failure of some suppliers (sellers), or can not be fully successful.

1, the subject name and signature is not standard

The name of the delivery unit is incomplete and even wrong. The risk is relatively small. But the name of the receiving unit is incomplete or even wrong, and the risk is very large.

Moreover, most of the delivery documents only include personal signature of warehouse receipts, or the official seal without a record, without the official seal of the receiving unit.

These risks often lead to the loss of the lawsuit, the reason is:

If the unit does not recognize that a warehouse keeper is an employee of its unit, and no other evidence (such as social security, labor contract, etc.) proves that the signer is the employee of the receiving unit, the court often decides the responsibility of the warehouse keeper to undertake the repayment of the individual himself. Such a verdict is very common in reality.

In addition, the internal special seal of the receiving unit, which is not recorded in the public security organs, can not prove that the special chapter is the unit of receiving the goods. If the receiving unit does not admit it, it can not be found that this special chapter is from the receiving unit. Such an example is not uncommon.

So how should we deal with it?

(1) the deliverer on the delivery list should be accurate

The order of delivery shall be printed in accordance with the name of the business license of its own business license.

The common problem is:

Originally a registered enterprise in Dongguan, it was written as an affiliated enterprise of Hongkong or Taiwan.

Originally a factory, a trade department, written as a company;

Originally a citizen individual, fictitious factory, a company.

If the lawsuit, who is the plaintiff?

In this way, when litigation comes to court, it is necessary to go to the Bureau of industry and commerce to confirm that there is no wrongly written unit, and then provide evidence to prove that it is the goods delivered by itself, thereby increasing the risk of litigation.

(2) careful verification of customer name and information

The name of the customer should also be filled in the full name of the name of the business on its business license.

Some shipper to save the picture, do not fill in the name of the full name of the customer, only a brief description of the three, two words. Even more, the receiving party has no business registration at all, and the enterprise does not exist in the law.

If the recipient does not sign a seal on the bill of delivery or does not have a business registration according to law, it is difficult to confirm the specific debtor. Who would you tell?

2. Limitation of action

Generally speaking, the delivery list is often only the time of delivery, but not the time to write the payment.

If this is the case, in many court decisions, the limitation of action will never pass.

We once handled such an incident. The delivery order was more than ten years ago. The defendant thought that he had already passed the limitation of action. The first instance decided that he had passed the limitation of action and lost the judgement.

Then he appealed to the intermediate court. The intermediate court made a decision on the first trial and decided to win the lawsuit.

But if the bill of delivery does indicate the time of payment, the limitation of action is calculated from the second day of the time of payment.

If there is no evidence that the delivery unit has recovered the payment to the receiving unit within two years, it will exceed the limitation of action, and the lawsuit of the delivery unit will lose the lawsuit. There are many examples of this.

3, product quality problems

There are many bill of delivery litigation due to the quality of the product.

The receiving unit often acknowledges the receipt of the goods and has no opinion on the quantity, but thinks that the quality is a problem and the countercharge delivery unit will compensate for the huge loss.

Such a verdict is very much, especially the delivery to the provinces or foreign countries, and some are deliberately swindling the enterprises in Guangdong.

A cooperative company in our company delivered to a South China Sea enterprise, and the South China Sea Business and a joint venture in Jiangxi Province, the Jiangxi province enterprise prosecuted the quality problem of Jiangxi in the past three years, and finally conciliation, the company lost about seven hundred thousand yuan.

Basically, more than 90% of the delivery lists have not mentioned the solution to the quality problem, some of the delivery lists mentioned, but the language expression is very irregular.

4. The money was cheated

Some bills of fare do not specify the payment of the goods, which results in the payment of the goods to the salesperson or driver's account in the delivery unit. These salesmen or drivers run away after they receive the payment.

If the amount is less than two hundred thousand yuan, the public security organs are limited in police force and time, and basically have no energy to file for treatment.

The loss is irreparable to the enterprise even if it is caught and the money is wasted.

Some enterprises want to investigate the responsibility of the receiving unit, but because the deliverer is the name of the salesperson, the driver's name, the receipt unit will enter the personal account of these people, it may be reasonable for some judges.